Daily Kos

View Story | 652 comments

  •  The problem is (none / 0)

    without resorting to admittedly cheap shot emotional appeal, is that "public use" is defined so broadly in this decision that there's virtually no piece of private property that wouldn't meet the standard.  

    I think the intent of the 5th amendment is to protect our private property from government intrusion, except in very narrowly defined cases. Yesterday's decision is the last event in a slow erosion of this narrow sense.  Now that potential property taxes are enough of a public good to seize property, the declaration of emminent domain is no longer constrained by law, but simply left at the whim of local officials.

    There is no piece of land that would not bring in more tax money if it were converted a luxury condo building or a WalMart.  It's dishonest to say that communities can now use emminent domain to kick WalMart out of their neighborhoods.  In fact, big businesses are now virtually the only exemption from government seizure, since they are the most efficient use of the land from a property tax angle.

    This is a major blow to the little guy, I'm disgusted that any Democrat would support it and I'm disappointed in the justices that ruled in the majority.

    by WAmod on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 12:12:55 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Hey, (none / 0)

      I'm upset that most Democrats don't seem to understand it yet.  But at least the Court did.

      So Kelo was about getting rid of low-value housing for increased tax revenue and jobs.  It's a local decision as to whether that's good policy, and a local election will resolve the issue.

      Maybe somewhere else it's a pig farm that's killing a midwestern town's ability to grow, and then the town can decide that one too.

      Maybe some other town fell victim to Wal-Mart destroying the downtown, and they want to get rid of it or revoke its tax giveaways.

      Or maybe the only thing keeping a hospital from moving in is one old dude in a shack he built with his own two hands, in a town that desperately needs better health services.

      No, Kelo was right.  We're not an absolute property rights regime, and we never have been.  If we were to become so, then the huge corporations would win a significant battle.  But it's easy to sell the "property rights, property rights, all hail property rights" argument to even very intelligent people.  It's the same reason people don't like the estate tax:  Hey, I might be a millionaire someday!  Than taxes would suck!  Sometimes letting an owner have permanent inviolable say over what happens to its property does much more harm than good, and it's within the government's ambit to convert his property to a beneficial public use.

      by OverKral on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 12:49:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Private entities... (none / 0)

        Already have a means to aquire land-- buying it on the market.

        I don't see why "more property taxes" are enough reason to force government intervention in a situation that easily lends itself to govt-corporate collusion, and for which there is a feasible means already there (for corporations to aquire land on the open marke)t.  If someone doesn't want to sell, tough for the corporation.  They can find many other places that will.

        If the city has a duty to get the most tax revenue possible as a "public good", then all of our houses should be razed in favor of high rise apartments.  But once we're out on the street, we can always mosey over to the voting booth and vote the guy out.  Small consolation if you ask me.

        by WAmod on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 02:17:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Argh (none / 0)

          No, no, no, no, no.

          The point is that Kelo gives governments a way to divest property from current uses that are harming a community or preventing it from improving.  Of course they can find other willing sellers.  But then they have to behave and contribute, or governments can kick them out under Kelo and replace them with somebody better.

          And the city doesn't have a "duty" to maximize tax revenue from every square foot.  That's silly.  But if it needs tax revenue badly, it better find a way to get some.  If the economy is sinking into depression and there aren't enough schools, then sometimes you have to flatten a few houses to get some jobs and taxes in the door.  The only "duty" is to serve the will of the public and do well by them.

          Some things are more important to an enduring democracy than your right to keep all your property in the same place.  Local government's right to restructure needy communities is one of them.  If your house gets in the way and the restructuring helps everybody else, then you can vote all you want, but careful the door doesn't you on the ass on your way out.  I think you shoudl be comensated enough to go buy a similar house in a similar area, but the standard of just compensation is irrelevant to the holding of Kelo.

          Sucks to be Kelo.  Might suck more to be New London without a Pfizer plant.  Might not.  We'll see.  Good thing it's up to the voters of New London.  

          by OverKral on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 02:34:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A public use is a private use is a public one (none / 0)

            This is not a school being put up, these are luxury condos.  Privately, not publicly owned.  And the existing houses are not dilapidated or drug dens.  They are not "harming the community" as a whole in any way.  The only reason they are "preventing it from improving" is because their house happens to sit where a private business decided they wanted to build.  

            And make no mistake Pfizer dictated the terms here-- not the local government who greedily capitulated, nor the people who were already on the land and wanted to stay.  Despite the SC's recent trend, it seems an obvious stretch to call this "public use" as intended in the 5th Amendment.  The only public benefits are tangential to hooking Pfizer up with cheap land and boosting their profits.

            And finally it's not up to the voters of New London-- it's up to the local officials who are simply trusted not to engage in any kind of cronyism.  Even if the people discover their malfeasance (for which they now have a viable legal excuse), any changes they make come election time will be too late and again a small consolation to those not on the Pfizer board.

            by WAmod on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 03:47:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They're not "simply trusted" (none / 0)

              They're elected.  Pfizer may have offered terms, but New London accepted them.  And those weren't the public benefits New London cited when they made the grant.  

              I have no problem whatsoever with the "public use" being a sale to a company that the government thinks will benefit the public or address a public need.

              An excuse?  Hardly.  They're just as answerable today as they were a week ago.

              Yeah, sucks to be the Kelos.  Totally sucks.  Too bad their sacrifice is a result of our political compact.

              Unfortunately, the Constitution provides just compensation for takings, not protection from suckitude.

              by OverKral on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 04:03:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

View Story | 652 comments